Nothing new, but I guess they are currently pushing the religion angle in court these days. As a reminder here is the Brennan affidavit outlining exactly how Hubbard changed his scam from "self-help" to 'religion" to skirt FDA scrutiny and to get a juicy tax-exemption.

. . . [W]e operate in societies that afford protections to the practice of religion not extended to “movements”. Of course, those protections can be twisted to attempt to hide abuses (like the RCS does), but they do protect everyone’s rights to choose their path to spiritual enlightenment and participate in the practices that bring them there.

I have experienced what it is like to have litigants sue you without the protection afforded a religion. Or the oversight of various government agencies who are restrained by laws that prevent them meddling in the affairs of religion. The category of “religion” has value. There is no doubt in my mind (confirmed by numerous courts and scholars) that Scientology IS a religion. I wouldnt be in a big hurry to abandon the protections that categorization provides — even practitioners who the church might want to take legal action against have an invisible force field erected around them as long as they keep practicing their religion.

I don't know what Rinder thinks these days. That was Rinder a year ago. Rathbun a year ago was still a Scientologist. Now Rathbun is not a Scientologist anymore. These guys are in some kind of transitional state.

I'm not sure what either one of them thinks, or is telling people they think, these days.

There does seem to be an effort by Scientology to convince people who do not like Scientology, and are opposed to Scientology, that Scientology is a religion.

This would fall into the pattern of a tactic that Scientology loves to use, which is to trick non-Scientologists into doing its work for it. In times past, Scientology has used police departments, and even the FBI - the FBI arrested Paulette Cooper for bomb threats secretly made by Scientology to itself.

This is the ultimate turn on for Scientology.

It's been fairly easy for Scientology to manipulate people who have a dislike for religion generally, and to lead those people into attacking Scientology as a religion.

That's a cute trick, because it places the opponents of Scientology in a position of empowering Scientology.

Another version of this is simply to convince critics of Scientology that, yes, they're right and Scientology does suck, but that it's also a religion.

There is no doubt in my mind (confirmed by numerous courts and scholars) that Scientology IS a religion.

I hope he wasn't referring to those scholars that Scientology paid for their essays on why Scientology is a religion. And let's toss most of the apologists too--not because they're apologists--but because they are piece of crap scholars who write stuff riddled with basic errors or copy without credit directly from CoS.

I hope he wasn't referring to those scholars that Scientology paid for their essays on why Scientology is a religion. And let's toss most of the apologists too--not because they're apologists--but because they are piece of crap scholars who write stuff riddled with basic errors or copy without credit directly from CoS.

As an example of the effort to sell Scientology as a religion to critics, a while back two new posters appeared on ESMB, and have been working to convince the participants there that Scientology is a religion.

They've used every Scientology cult trick n the book to do so, although both claim to have never been Scientologists.

As an example of the effort to sell Scientology as a religion to critics, a while back two new posters appeared on ESMB, and have been working to convince the participants there that Scientology is a religion.

They've used every Scientology cult trick n the book to do so, although both claim to have never been Scientologists.

Don't be scared. Just be aware that there's a new twist and Scientology Inc. is having some success tricking some ex-Scientologsists into agreeing that Scientology is a religion - an evil religion, but a religion.

Don't be scared. Just be aware that there's a new twist and Scientology Inc. is having some success tricking some ex-Scientologsists into agreeing that Scientology is a religion - an evil religion, but a religion.

Few here are scared of OSA and most would recognize the sarcasm you missed.

What's the actual difference between a fake religion and a real religion? Scientology is gaming the system. But they can only do that because people are convinced that religions are worthy of respect and deserve special treatment.

As an example of the effort to sell Scientology as a religion to critics, a while back two new posters appeared on ESMB, and have been working to convince the participants there that Scientology is a religion.

They've used every Scientology cult trick n the book to do so, although both claim to have never been Scientologists.

And it's having an effect.

What effect would that be?
Post a ling to the thread/s
If you can't then ..just fuckoff or post pics of your genitalia.

It's not just that. The disguise of "religion" protects Scientology from taxes, laws, inspections, etc. Then, in that insulated, protected, environment, Scientology can pretty much do what it pleases.

You'd think Scientology would finally relax about the topic, but they're still drilling the membership to repeat over and over to wogs that "Scientology is my religion," "the Scientology religion," etc. It's not natural for a whole bunch of people to speak that way, They are told to speak that way.

Scientology is concerned with public (wog) opinion. It sees that public opinion is still not in its favor on the topic of it being a "religion." Scientology continues to be ridiculed by people who do not regard it as a religion. Believe it or not, the average person is disinclined to ridicule anything that is believed to be a actual genuine religion, so the aim is to shift public opinion from "Scientology is a mind-control cult" to "Scientology is a religion," with "Scientology sucks and is a cult but is also a religion" as an acceptable gradient in the direction of "Scientology is a religion."

The idea is that once people are convinced that Scientology is a "religion," they'll become meek about ridiculing it, and they'll become quiet on the topic.

The goal is to make people afraid to ridicule or criticize Scientology because doing so will equate to "attacking someone's religion." and, believe it or not, the average person is reluctant to publicly ridicule an other's "religion."

Self enforced public meekness on the topic is the objective, and that will be obtained once the public is sold on the idea that Scientology really is a religion.

What's the actual difference between a fake religion and a real religion? Scientology is gaming the system. But they can only do that because people are convinced that religions are worthy of respect and deserve special treatment.

This is part of the argument needed to dismantle the religion talking point. It needs to be combined with emphasising the difference between ‘religion’, as a set of beliefs, and a ‘religion’, as an organisation. This distinction can be used to dismantle the talking point outright.

Real world example of this argument being used. Where we protest there is a Hare Krishna restaurant just up the road. Whenever someone brings up the talking the religion talking point I use a patter similar to the following (it varies depending on what questions get asked in response):

“There is a difference between a ‘religion’, as a set of beliefs, and a ‘religious organisation’. Any set of beliefs, even baseball, could be regarded as someone’s religion. And that’s fine.But, is Scientology cult a ‘religious organisation’? Do they do good and enhance the lives of its members, or do they cause those members harm?You see that restaurant up there – that’s run by the Hare Krishna.They have never accompanied their members to ATM machines to extract money from them.They have never pretended or claimed to be able cure to a serious disease, nor have they ever used such a claim to extract money from their members.They have never stalked or harassed their critics, now tried dirty tricks like ringing up a critic’s place of work to try darkening that critic’s name with claims of paedophilia and child molestation and that they are a criminal.They have never told a person that the reason they cannot afford an extremely expensive course is because their family are a suppressive influence, and that in order to be able to afford the course they should consider disconnecting from these suppressives.They have never claimed to be able to get people off drugs, nor have they ever caused the death of any person because of dangerous medically-unsafe unscientific practices applied to those with addictions.They have never coerced their members into getting abortions, because doing otherwise would have interfered with the work of clearing the planet.The Hare Krishna do none of these things, so I would have no issue applying the term ‘religious organisation’ to them. The Scientology cult does all of these things, and many more similar abuses as dictated by their internal policies – policies which have the ultimate goal to extract the largest amount of cash out of a victim in the shortest space of time.Which is the more accurate label for an organisation that does all of these things on a regular basis in line with their internal policies: a ‘religious organisation’ or a ‘dangerous criminal money-obsessed mafia-like cult’? Don’t confuse the beliefs of a person with the actions, harassment and abuses of an organisation like this. Anyone is free to choose their beliefs, but they are not free to defraud and hurt others for cash.”
I can tell you that, as someone who developed the above talking over the last five years, that it really really works. OSA’s talking point is predicated on people associating ‘religion’ with something good or positive. The talking point above plays on this inclination to associate religion with goodness, and gets the person themselves to separate out the cult abuses from what they would traditionally consider the good inherent in ‘religion’.

This is a better approach because, in my experience, if there are people prepared to grant the ‘religion’ label even though they know about the abuses then you have little hope with those less up-to-speed on said abuses.

It's not just that. The disguise of "religion" protects Scientology from taxes, laws, inspections, etc. Then, in that insulated, protected, environment, Scientology can pretty much do what it pleases.

Exhibit A being the Headley’s and their court case. The judge pretty much ruled that she couldn’t examine or consider the claims of human trafficking because the cult claimed their actions were part of its doctrine, and the judge feared that actually doing her fucking job would cause ‘excessive entanglement’ between government and religion. Pretty much also ignoring the SCOTUS holding that the enforcement of ‘neutral laws of general applicability’ (which I would have though human trafficking laws were) do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The main problem is not that the cult claims it's a religion, the problem is the US laws and public opinion get all mushy when religion comes up. It is stupid, and it is sad, but it is how it is. As long as any fundie in America can use the ''you hurt my religious feelings'' card as a valid argument, cults like the CoS get a free pass.

As an example of the effort to sell Scientology as a religion to critics, a while back two new posters appeared on ESMB, and have been working to convince the participants there that Scientology is a religion.

They've used every Scientology cult trick n the book to do so, although both claim to have never been Scientologists.

What's the actual difference between a fake religion and a real religion? Scientology is gaming the system. But they can only do that because people are convinced that religions are worthy of respect and deserve special treatment.

Here's a sophisticated example of how the religious meme is inserted into dialogue. The poster may or may not be an Indie but is working for them, and Indies love mocking up that reality in wog minds.

Here's a sophisticated example of how the religious meme is inserted into dialogue. The poster may or may not be an Indie but is working for them, and Indies love mocking up that reality in wog minds.

I don't think it is just Indies, I think both groups have a vested interest in the "Scientology is a religion" meme. Course they're going to have to get past the "Scientology is a cult" meme first, but we'll give them time to catch up.

Here's a sophisticated example of how the religious meme is inserted into dialogue. The poster may or may not be an Indie but is working for them, and Indies love mocking up that reality in wog minds.

The poster is not an indy but has a reasonably high degree of contempt for religion in general.

Scientology has all the characteristics of a religion which makes sense since it was deliberately designed to do so.

What separates it from most religions is that there are plentiful dox showing that it was created to benefit its founder.

There are pretty strong dox showing the same thing about Mormonism.

You can make reasonable arguments for a lot of other historical religious leaders as well.

The Church of Scientology, the Indies, the Freezone, etc. should all be criticized for peddling woo. As should any other "religious group" that charges money for bogus therapy or treatment.

The Church of Scientology should be shut down for egregious criminal activities. So should any other religious group that does anything remotely like that.

All religious groups should at a minimum have to pass financial audits and conform to some reasonable governance requirements to get any tax relief. Ideally, they should only get tax relief for legitimately charitable activities and not simply "religious purposes".

If we stop treating religious groups as if they are inherently of some benefit to society and giving them special treatment then it won't matter who thinks Scientology is a religion.

This is part of the argument needed to dismantle the religion talking point. It needs to be combined with emphasising the difference between ‘religion’, as a set of beliefs, and a ‘religion’, as an organisation. This distinction can be used to dismantle the talking point outright.

This "differentiating" bullshit is core Indie propaganda but, unfortunately for those recovering from the mind fuck, made worse by the fact that L Ron Hubbard processing installs within its inherent the implanted "knowingness" that being able to differentiate is to exercise intelligence. And Scientologsts "know" they are intelligent despite everything reality presents.When it comes to a valid differentiation, I suggest the more accurate analogy is the difference between the Cosa Nostra and the Mafia.

The idea that religion can be defined as "a set of beliefs" (a common statement made by the mindfucked) is fail because if it were true then neo-liberalism and socialism, for example, must also be religions, but we know they are not. Just as how a person can distinguish between pornography and art, so too can one distinguish Scientology from religion. But its not easy to do for those unpractised in the skills of thinking for themselves.

A good starting point is by defining terms. In this dialogue, Scientology can be defined as what its originator said it was - the unaltered collected work of L Ron Hubbard with KSW at its core. Moving on now to "religion" and the quagmire opens up. Hugh Urban in his last book discussed the difficulties in defining religion. Even the Scientology apologist schill acadmics agree with this definition problem but, of course, they use it to Scientology's advantage. One long-established philisophical approach that has been suggested for this particular dilemma is to seek a defintion by stating what Scientology is not. Scientology, for example, is not a science because there is nothing remotely scientific (as that word is defined by scientists) about it. Scientology is NOT a set of beliefs because Scientologists don't believe anything . . . and so it goes on. The only area in which the contrast approach falters and finally comes to a halt is when a distinction is sought between Scientology and fraud. That's because

The poster is not an indy but has a reasonably high degree of contempt for religion in general . . . If we stop treating religious groups as if they are inherently of some benefit to society and giving them special treatment then it won't matter who thinks Scientology is a religion.

Another of the sophisticated argument techniques employed by those seeking to promote the religious cloaking of Scientology is to present an impossible solution involving all other religions and, thus, again reinforcing the Scientology = religion angle. In this arena, we are dealing with Scientology and Scientology alone. We like to stay on target and, assuming you are a dupe rather than an instigator, I may well join you in working towards a more universal solution to the largely unwarranted special treatment society delivers to religion generally. In the meantime, perhaps we can work together to resolve the Scientology issue first by staying on target. How's that sound?

A good starting point is by defining terms. In this dialogue, Scientology can be defined as what its originator said it was - the unaltered collected work of L Ron Hubbard with KSW at its core.

TL/DR: Scientology is a fraud.

QFT

Where people like Rinderburn are held up in their recovery is in their near visceral attachment to the Scientologist identity. It still defines their core being. For all the glowing and adoring reports of his progress, Marty still struggles with this and is only putting on the outer garments of eastern mysticism to rationalise his wasted life and justify his on going lying by omission. He's also trying to make some money and tricking people into treating imagined whole trace incidents as spiritual revalations is all he knows. Fact remains, in the Hubturds reign as Crime Boss, the M&M Show would have been deemed a nest of squirrels requiring only disposal without sorrow. Until those outside of the cult expunge their inner Scientologist and, if they must, create their own Scientology-like structure and mind altering routines, they will continue to work alongside OSA in this religious cloaking activity and, whether they realise it or not, against their own stated intentof ending Scientology abuse.

The problem with using definitions to exclude scientology from the sphere of religions is that a definition need to have popular, and preferably academic support before you can use it as an argument.

Says you. All it really needs to be is logically irrefutable for effective use in argument and it is in the use of argument which will deliver the popular support and academic endorsement even if only to not look any more foolish than most of them do already.

The problem with using definitions to exclude scientology from the sphere of religions is that a definition need to have popular, and preferably academic support before you can use it as an argument.

Here's an avenue to generating popular support - remind the world over and over again that at the very peak of Scientology's spirituality individuals speak to the ghosts of aliens Xenu brought to Teegeeack in UFO spaceships 75 million years ago and killed by blowing them up in volcanoes using hydrogen bombs. But wait, it gets worse. The only way to gain access to these lethal - yes lethal - secrets of planetary clearing total freedom, Scientologists must hand over hundreds of thousands of dollars, never ever even once bring a law suit against another Scientologist or Scientology, and isolate themselves from anyone declared an SP, even if that person is their own child or mother or father. That's Scientology in practise and that practise cannot be defined as within current understandings of what constitutes religion. Scientologists will try and will use any means neccessary including orchestrated criminal activity to try and impose their view, and instructions not only to do so but also how to do so were written by the Hubturd and must be complied with. A Scientologist who even doubts the mandate, Scientology teaching state, risks entrapment in a dwindling spiral from which they can only be saved by Scientology or they will devolve spiritual down to mud.